Quote:
Originally Posted by blender
It seems as if forcing teams to protect immenent free agents who have NMCs is a purely punitive act by the league. What other purpose does it serve?
|
I doubt the league is interested in punishing teams who have signed players to contracts that include NMC clauses. It's likely more a matter of the terms of expansion draft needing to be agreed to by both the league and the NHLPA.
The NHLPA would expect a no movement clause to exempt a player from being drafted by an expansion team. Since the team agreed to this clause when they signed the player, it seems reasonable to expect them to stand by the clause when an expansion draft happens.
Since that expectation might not come to pass (undoubtedly some teams, with the benefit of hindsight) would happily expose a player with an NMC clause. But since there are so few players and teams affected by an official league position on the subject (something like 14 players, on 12 out of 30 teams), it seems straightforward and reasonable for the league to specify that players with NMC clauses must count as a protected player in any expansion draft. The 12 teams might not like it, but it has no impact on the majority of teams.
So in that way, a potentially contentious issue with regards to expansion between the league and NHLPA instead becomes an agreed upon item along the way to expansion.